Opinion - News Analysis   

Is the two-nation theory still relevant?

By K.K. Katyal

A brief remark by Pakistan's Prime Minister, Zafarullah Khan Jamali, in the course of an interview with Frontline, has triggered a lively controversy, throwing up concepts and doctrines of profound significance to both New Delhi and Islamabad.

The main issue was about the relevance of the two-nation theory, which formed the basis for the Muslim League's demand and the campaign for the Partition of the sub-continent. According to Mr. Jamali, it is no longer valid — in the changed context. The question and answer were as follows:

Question: Is the two-nation theory valid? If so, then to which nation do the Muslims of India belong? And what is the status of non-Muslims in Pakistan?

Answer: I think the two-nation theory has become a one-nation theory. It was over half a century ago. And of whichever nation is there, that is there today.

Mr. Jamali, it was clear, implied that while there were two nations in the undivided India — Hindus and Muslims — warranting division on the basis of religion into two nation-states, each of the two countries became a one-nation dispensation after the Partition. Critics from within the Opposition parties and religious organisations pounced on him for abandoning the "ideology of Pakistan." The Pakistani media summed up their reaction in some detail. According to the Muslim League (Nawaz) representative, Mr. Jamali's pronouncement amounted to a "conspiracy" against Pakistan, which was the result of the growing relations between the Governments in Islamabad and New Delhi. The Jamat-e-Islami wanted Mr. Jamali to clarify what he had actually said if he did not want the people to believe that the two-nation theory had been buried. It threatened to "condemn and resist the conspiracy." Another religious party was quoted as blaming the rulers for having subjugated the country to the enemy. Two former heads of the Lahore Chamber of Commerce felt that the two-nation theory, providing "stability and survival" to the country, was now being tragically given up.

These interpretations were strongly questioned by the Daily Times. All this was nonsense, it said. "The truth of the matter is that the two-nation theory was fashioned by the Pakistan movement before 1947 to legitimise its demand for a separate state. After 1947, it is wrong and even dangerous to apply it to Pakistan. Applying it to India today and suggesting that the Muslims in India were the `second nation' would offend against the norms of international conduct and reverse the efforts of Indian Muslims to secure equal rights under the Indian Constitution," it said.

Within Pakistan, it added, there was already trouble because of religious gloss put on the theory. Separate electorates in Pakistan were first adopted through a wrong extrapolation of the original Muslim League demand for a separate electorate in India; later, they were given a religious colour and made a part of General Zia's so-called `Islamisation.'

Before 1947, the Congress and other non-Muslim League parties, not excluding those of the Muslims, had opposed the two-nation theory and the demand for the Partition. They could not prevent it but were vindicated by two developments after the creation of Pakistan. One, the separation of the eastern wing of Pakistan with the inception of Bangladesh, which ran counter to the assumptions of the Muslim League that the Muslims of the sub-continent qualified for nationhood because of the religious factor. They became two, not one, states some 25 years after the Partition. Religion did not prove a strong glue for nationhood and other factors, such as ethnicity, language and geography had had an over-riding effect.

Two, Mohajirs, the Urdu-speaking Muslims from Uttar Pradesh and other northern areas, who migrated to what they thought was the land of promise, found it hard to integrate themselves with the society there. There were several ironies about this situation. These migrants, vociferous advocates of the Partition, were the real architects of Pakistan and yet they felt they were subjected to all manner of discriminations. Even their children and grandchildren, born and brought up there, were labelled Mohajirs. No wonder, they began to emphasise their identity — a sentiment misconstrued by the locals as a demand for separation. "These fellows first divided India and are, now, out to divide Pakistan," was one pungent comment against them.

Whether or not there was any justification for the two-nation theory in the past, even its proponents (as represented by Mr. Jamali's stand) regard it a thing of the past. The stress now is not on the two-nation theory but on today's reality of two one-nation states. This is sound politics both for India and Pakistan. In India, it could help strengthen secular values as against narrow religious approaches. It could well be used to strengthen integrative factors by all, irrespective of political beliefs.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Updates: Breaking News |

Stories in this Section

• Festival of the people
• A mammoth exercise
• The model code of conduct
• Is the two-nation theory still relevant?

Copyright © 2004, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu